Transit Fantasies

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Pretty sure your OP was two turns with an unaltered Cordova. If we're talking about total turns now, that's five - two from Powell to Pender, one onto Granville, two in and out of the hub WB, or two in and out onto Cordova EB. But now we're splitting hairs.

Do you mean closing Water? Powell's staying as-is.
Again, don't mistake any of the bus routes for high-capacity like a BRT; they're all quiet feeder routes that converge and create the illusion of capacity. Bus lanes are almost entirely unnecessary even by the time the streetcar opens.

What we could do is just reclaim the EB curb lane of Granville-Richards, add bus shelters, and make that a limited interchange for the 4/7 and the N-S routes; it already is, more or less, but this makes it official. Solves your confusion problem and doesn't depend on CP saying yes.

Speaking of the streetcar, there's not a lot of options for it past Water. You'd have to either make Cordova two-way and run the trains in mixed traffic in the centre or curbs (bad idea), or dedicate the WB lanes to the ROW; the latter might work if it terminates at WF for good, but that means the 4 and 7 are stuck on the current route. Probably not going to make it to Coal Harbour either way.

Yeah, that's kind of why these ideas should be bounced around like this, to improve them.

Water/Powell. Going past Quebec/Main would make sense if the DTES problem could be solved, and it would be easier to put in bus lanes past Quebec anyways to save the hassle of putting them in later and facing more public opposition.

Yeah, but all those bus routes converging actually probably means you need contagious bus lanes to avoid causing more congestion on the nearby roads. Especially a problem since there's no space for bus bulbs.

Also, if you want to get Arbutus to DT (required if it's even to play a minor role in relieving the Canada) you need to get across the Granville Bridge. It will go DT, and at that point (since you would need to extend the bus lanes to the Bridge) you may as well get it to connect to the rest of the streetcar routes and Hastings at Waterfront for all the hassle.



I agree you should have that as well. But note that you still need to get to Waterfront to access the Hastings/West End/NS once that goes through at least.


From the Central Waterfront Hub Framework:
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/C031.pdf

This report presents a planning Framework for the Central Waterfront Hub that describes how this key area of Vancouver, where multiple transportation modes converge, could develop into a world-class transportation interchange and dynamic extension of the downtown waterfront.

Adding in a bus terminal makes perfect sense within the context of the plan's intention. Actually that's probably part of the reason it hasn't been done yet may be because of this- it's not a RE development plan. It's not really needed until at least Hastings/NS Skytrain goes through.


There are off-peak parking lanes on Cordova/Waterfront past Howe, and Cordova can be widened 1 lane between Howe and Granville.

The pinch point between Water and 555 W Cordova is a big problem though. Even the city wants to widen the sidewalks there, but there's not many options.

Is it feasible to move the landing south or demo part of SFU Harbour Center?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Water/Powell. Going past Quebec/Main would make sense if the DTES problem could be solved, and it would be easier to put in bus lanes past Quebec anyways to save the hassle of putting them in later and facing more public opposition.

Yeah, but all those bus routes converging actually probably means you need contiguous bus lanes to avoid causing more congestion on the nearby roads. Especially a problem since there's no space for bus bulbs.

Also, if you want to get Arbutus to DT (required if it's even to play a minor role in relieving the Canada) you need to get across the Granville Bridge. It will go DT, and at that point (since you would need to extend the bus lanes to the Bridge) you may as well get it to connect to the rest of the streetcar routes and Hastings at Waterfront for all the hassle.



I agree you should have that as well. But note that you still need to get to Waterfront to access the Hastings/West End/NS once that goes through at least.


From the Central Waterfront Hub Framework:
https://guidelines.vancouver.ca/C031.pdf

Adding in a bus terminal makes perfect sense within the context of the plan's intention. Actually that's probably part of the reason it hasn't been done yet may be because of this- it's not a RE development plan. It's not really needed until at least Hastings/NS Skytrain goes through.


There are off-peak parking lanes on Cordova/Waterfront past Howe, and Cordova can be widened 1 lane between Howe and Granville.

The pinch point between Water and 555 W Cordova is a big problem though. Even the city wants to widen the sidewalks there, but there's not many options.

Is it feasible to move the landing south or demo part of SFU Harbour Center?

Local routes on those three streets are already scheduled for every five minutes peak, and are unlikely to get any faster. Congestion is already here... and it's pretty manageable.

A train on Granville Bridge is probably a non-starter. Too much interference with foot/bike/bus/car traffic, especially after all the Connector stuff gets built out. You could try a SkyTrain branch down Burrard to Arbutus Station, like others have.

Waterfront's pretty well-connected and easy to access the way it is. Just walk across Cordova to the big red brick building - five years from now, it'll be the one with the funky glass building on top. Can't miss it. Still not sure how an interchange adds anything to that.

The problem with the CBD part of Cordova isn't the width, it's all the underground ramps: can't remove two lanes for a ROW without creating additional bottlenecks all over the place. In that scenario, best to keep it one-way.
And Harbour Centre's here to stay, so that's a no-go as well. Unless you want to leave the streetcar terminus on Water, I'm not seeing any other good choices save the above two.

[fredinno]

Delete

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Local routes on those three streets are already scheduled for every five minutes peak, and are unlikely to get any faster. Congestion is already here... and it's pretty manageable.

A train on Granville Bridge is probably a non-starter. Too much interference with foot/bike/bus/car traffic, especially after all the Connector stuff gets built out. You could try a SkyTrain branch down Burrard to Arbutus Station, like others have.

Waterfront's pretty well-connected and easy to access the way it is. Just walk across Cordova to the big red brick building - five years from now, it'll be the one with the funky glass building on top. Can't miss it. Still not sure how an interchange adds anything to that.

The problem with the CBD part of Cordova isn't the width, it's all the underground ramps: can't remove two lanes for a ROW without creating additional bottlenecks all over the place. In that scenario, best to keep it one-way.
And Harbour Centre's here to stay, so that's a no-go as well. Unless you want to leave the streetcar terminus on Water, I'm not seeing any other good choices save the above two.

Bus Service on those routes will inevitably increase due to densification on corridors outside Skytrain- 5-6 stories across Vancouver off and on the arterials could become the norm by 2060- and the Skytrain network alone can't handle that sort of traffic. Which I'm pretty sure is what both you and I want to see.

Burrard is bad because going on the Bridge would require cantilevering the cycling pathways on the sides, already rejected due to the effects on the heritage structure, or going under the bridge-either resulting in a draw bridge or a tunnel underneath DT (too expensive, most likely). Assuming that's even possible due to the Squamish Reserve Redevelopments- a 1-track spur to the area may be as good as we get here due to space limitations. Actually, that'd be as much I'd bet we'd get- which is about the size of the parking lanes on Pennyfarthing.

Rebuilding Granville Bridge (since reducing Granville to 4 lanes was considered unacceptable) to 12 lanes, or moving its ped/cycling facilities to a new, nearby bridge are probably the only options here.

And going from Waterfront back to the bus stops?

Yep. Which is why you go around it by going behind Waterfront to avoid the queuing area into the ramp.

I said to demo part of Harbour Center. Just enough to move it 9m or so southwards, which is likely about the size of an office and a hallway. Even if you end on Water Street, that area is a problem because of ped traffic going from Water to Waterfront.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Bus Service on those routes will inevitably increase due to densification on corridors outside Skytrain- 5-6 stories across Vancouver off and on the arterials could become the norm by 2060- and the Skytrain network alone can't handle that sort of traffic. Which I'm pretty sure is what both you and I want to see.

Burrard is bad because going on the Bridge would require cantilevering the cycling pathways on the sides, already rejected due to the effects on the heritage structure, or going under the bridge-either resulting in a draw bridge or a tunnel underneath DT (too expensive, most likely). Assuming that's even possible due to the Squamish Reserve Redevelopments- a 1-track spur to the area may be as good as we get here due to space limitations. Actually, that'd be as much I'd bet we'd get- which is about the size of the parking lanes on Pennyfarthing.

Rebuilding Granville Bridge (since reducing Granville to 4 lanes was considered unacceptable) to 12 lanes, or moving its ped/cycling facilities to a new, nearby bridge are probably the only options here.

And going from Waterfront back to the bus stops?

Yep. Which is why you go around it by going behind Waterfront to avoid the queuing area into the ramp.

I said to demo part of Harbour Center. Just enough to move it 9m or so southwards, which is likely about the size of an office and a hallway. Even if you end on Water Street, that area is a problem because of ped traffic going from Water to Waterfront.

Extra capacity to address growth would likely come in the form of artics. Once again, we're talking every five minutes for downtown routes at rush hour, which is more or less "full throttle" frequency for local service; any more introduces bunch-ups as the lines converge (maybe even in spite of bus lanes), and would also mean the hiring of 25-66% more drivers, which is definitely out of the question for the next twenty years.

Definitely not proposing anything besides underground options for Burrard-Arbutus. Expensive, sure, but potentially well worth the money.

... Just walk out of the station and across the street? There's only one way out right now. You'd be doing it anyway with the bus nexus (I'll just call it that to stop confusing myself), except in the opposite direction.

Putting a two-way streetcar behind would seem to be an "anti-nexus" argument: buses and trams don't mix very well. And to get back out, you need to keep going along Canada Place in mixed traffic, or close it off and shift everybody onto Cordova instead.

Worst comes to worst, the City may shift the WB lane south and add the Landing corner to the sidewalk; as it is, it's a lot wider than Google Maps makes it out to be. I seriously doubt that any part of Harbour Centre is going anywhere, streetcar or not.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Extra capacity to address growth would likely come in the form of artics. Once again, we're talking every five minutes for downtown routes at rush hour, which is more or less "full throttle" frequency for local service; any more introduces bunch-ups as the lines converge (maybe even in spite of bus lanes), and would also mean the hiring of 25-66% more drivers, which is definitely out of the question for the next twenty years.

Definitely not proposing anything besides underground options for Burrard-Arbutus. Expensive, sure, but potentially well worth the money.

... Just walk out of the station and across the street? There's only one way out right now. You'd be doing it anyway with the bus nexus (I'll just call it that to stop confusing myself), except in the opposite direction.

Putting a two-way streetcar behind would seem to be an "anti-nexus" argument: buses and trams don't mix very well. And to get back out, you need to keep going along Canada Place in mixed traffic, or close it off and shift everybody onto Cordova instead.

Worst comes to worst, the City may shift the WB lane south and add the Landing corner to the sidewalk; as it is, it's a lot wider than Google Maps makes it out to be. I seriously doubt that any part of Harbour Centre is going anywhere, streetcar or not.

Routes like the 7 and even the 16 don't go at that sort of frequency. Actually, I think only the 10 goes that frequent on Granville Mall, and it doesn't turn to the east. You will still want bus lanes coming from the east, and those buses will end up congesting the surrounding streets more w/o priority/dedicated space. Frequency>Capacity when you can achieve it as well. So you want both transit malls coming from the east and south to max/near max capacity at rush hour. Just adding the Water Street Transit Mall would increase congestion in the CBD section most likely.


You can also add bus bays to Granville Mall (and Water Street) if necessary for alleviated congestion. The mall is actually pretty wide for most of its width- if we use optical guided bus technologies (or we get automated buses), we can get widen the mall by 4m by stealing some land from the wide sidewalks for bus bays/express lanes- if not, you'd have to steal 5m. Though considering the amount of pedestrian traffic, not sure if that's a good idea. But it is an option.

The marginal cost of a large bus nexus added to the Waterfront Hub Plan, using the cost of the UBC Bus Exchange as an analogue, would be $22M. The rest of the Hub would cost, at minimum (since it assumes the concourse is a shell-LOL) would be $155M, adjusted for inflation to 2019$. Likely the ultimate actual cost would be more like $250M. Even with the former #, it's 14% of the total cost. May as well. Even if it’s not needed for the next 20-30 years- you’re not going to get a second chance at building this.

Hey, you brought up wayfinding! I didn't think it was THAT big a deal.

I have been vocal about wanting the streetcar to be BRT, and the Arbutus as Tram-Train. You likely still want bus/streetcar lanes on the Granville Bridge eventually though, meaning you will be eventually rebuilding that bridge to be more suitable to modern needs.

I think I want a citation for trams and buses not mixing well. Maybe, but I can’t find anything on the topic.

the City may shift the WB lane south

...? How? Reduce the road to 3 lanes?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Routes like the 7 and even the 16 don't go at that sort of frequency. Actually, I think only the 10 goes that frequent on Granville Mall, and it doesn't turn to the east. You will still want bus lanes coming from the east, and those buses will end up congesting the surrounding streets more w/o priority/dedicated space. Frequency>Capacity when you can achieve it as well. So you want both transit malls coming from the east and south to max/near max capacity at rush hour. Just adding the Water Street Transit Mall would increase congestion in the CBD section most likely.

You can also add bus bays to Granville Mall (and Water Street) if necessary for alleviated congestion. The mall is actually pretty wide for most of its width- if we use optical guided bus technologies (or we get automated buses), we can get widen the mall by 4m by stealing some land from the wide sidewalks for bus bays/express lanes- if not, you'd have to steal 5m. Though considering the amount of pedestrian traffic, not sure if that's a good idea. But it is an option.

The marginal cost of a large bus nexus added to the Waterfront Hub Plan, using the cost of the UBC Bus Exchange as an analogue, would be $22M. The rest of the Hub would cost, at minimum (since it assumes the concourse is a shell-LOL) would be $155M, adjusted for inflation to 2019$. Likely the ultimate actual cost would be more like $250M. Even with the former #, it's 14% of the total cost. May as well. Even if it’s not needed for the next 20-30 years- you’re not going to get a second chance at building this.

Hey, you brought up wayfinding! I didn't think it was THAT big a deal.

I have been vocal about wanting the streetcar to be BRT, and the Arbutus as Tram-Train. You likely still want bus/streetcar lanes on the Granville Bridge eventually though.

I think I want a citation for trams and buses not mixing well. Maybe, but I can’t find anything on the topic.


...? How? Reduce the road to 3 lanes?

We talking about Granville or the E-W streets? At Waterfront, the 3, 5, 8, and 10 are effectively maxed out at peak, as is the 22 on Pender; you can squeeze maybe one or two more buses in per hour. At higher frequencies, busways aren't going to make much of a difference - not without passing lanes, at least.
And again, given the recent strike, we should probably be pragmatic about how many buses and drivers/maintenance personnel TransLink can sustain. We're already fairly high for local transit - what we need is more rapid transit.

That's assuming there's a first chance. If you can get the job done just fine for a fraction of the budget and zero negotiating, why not?

We both brought it up. Regardless, getting lost in and out of Waterfront Station itself requires a very unique kind of transit rider. The platforms, maybe, but that's a completely different argument.

If cars don't mix well, buses won't either. And there isn't enough space for bus lanes, a bus interchange and tram tracks - somebody's going to have to wait behind somebody else, slowing everybody down.

Right in one. If Granville-Seymour is charter/taxi space and Seymour-Richards is a bus bulge, EB is effectively two lanes anyway.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We talking about Granville or the E-W streets? At Waterfront, the 3, 5, 8, and 10 are effectively maxed out at peak, as is the 22 on Pender; you can squeeze maybe one or two more buses in per hour. At higher frequencies, busways aren't going to make much of a difference - not without passing lanes, at least.
And again, given the recent strike, we should probably be pragmatic about how many buses and drivers/maintenance personnel TransLink can sustain. We're already fairly high for local transit - what we need is more rapid transit.

That's assuming there's a first chance. If you can get the job done just fine for a fraction of the budget and zero negotiating, why not?

We both brought it up. Regardless, getting lost in and out of Waterfront Station itself requires a very unique kind of transit rider. The platforms, maybe, but that's a completely different argument.

If cars don't mix well, buses won't either. And there isn't enough space for bus lanes, a bus interchange and tram tracks - somebody's going to have to wait behind somebody else, slowing everybody down.

Right in one. If Granville-Seymour is charter/taxi space and Seymour-Richards is a bus bulge, EB is effectively two lanes anyway.

Considering the trolley routes often go on both Granville and Powell/Water? Both.

I already pointed out passing lanes would be possible- at least 1 lane as a 'virtual lane', so you can have some passing for express services without taking too much space from the sidewalk, but 2 is still feasible.
https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/mas...irtual-busways
And as I pointed out earlier, there are other potentially high-demand ones that aren't, like the 17, 16, 19, and the 7.

That's assuming there's a first chance. If you can get the job done just fine for a fraction of the budget and zero negotiating, why not?

I think that discussion fits in the other discussion thread.

Buses don't mix well with buses? If the tram is going underground under False Creek, you may as well go underground all the way instead of going through the effort of going back up again.

Well, the streets in the Waterfront Hub plan are designed to be at least 20m width. Meaning 4 lanes. Getting in and out of the exchange into Water? Yeah, that's a problem. Unless you can move the Landing. You don't need passing lanes the entire way, but it still can't fit 2 lanes without narrowing the car lane space to 2 lanes.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Considering the trolley routes often go on both Granville and Powell/Water? Both.

I already pointed out passing lanes would be possible- at least 1 lane as a 'virtual lane', so you can have some passing for express services without taking too much space from the sidewalk, but 2 is still feasible.
https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/mas...irtual-busways
And as I pointed out earlier, there are other potentially high-demand ones that aren't, like the 17, 16, 19, and the 7.


I think that discussion fits in the other discussion thread.

Buses don't mix well with buses? If the tram is going underground under False Creek, you may as well go underground all the way instead of going through the effort of going back up again.

Well, the streets in the Waterfront Hub plan are designed to be at least 20m width. Meaning 4 lanes. Getting in and out of the exchange into Water? Yeah, that's a problem. Unless you can move the Landing. You don't need passing lanes the entire way, but it still can't fit 2 lanes without narrowing the car lane space to 2 lanes.

At that point you've got 1.5 out of 2 lanes dedicated to transit; might as well make Pender or Cordova a bus mall like Granville and call it a day. Of course, if motor vehicle demand starts dropping significantly faster than it already is, that may well be plausible.

Well yes, technically a tram could qualify as a bus on rails... except that it turns wider, brakes slower and can't switch lanes (or even reverse, without the proper overhead wiring). Bottom line, we want to keep it separate from other modes of transportation - even other transit vehicles.

Underground SkyTrain would be optimal. Though burying the streetcar past Water and running it to the West End and/or back to Arbutus, that's a decent solution too.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

At that point you've got 1.5 out of 2 lanes dedicated to transit; might as well make Pender or Cordova a bus mall like Granville and call it a day. Of course, if motor vehicle demand starts dropping significantly faster than it already is, that may well be plausible.

Well yes, technically a tram could qualify as a bus on rails... except that it turns wider, brakes slower and can't switch lanes (or even reverse, without the proper overhead wiring). Bottom line, we want to keep it separate from other modes of transportation - even other transit vehicles.

Underground SkyTrain would be optimal. Though burying the streetcar past Water and running it to the West End and/or back to Arbutus, that's a decent solution too.

... I don't think you're getting it. I meant a virtual passing lane. Meaning 3 lanes.

I thought it were buses that turn wider and brake slower... though again, I suggested having the streetcar routes just be BRT for cost sake anyways (it's honestly way easier to justify since the 'streetcar for development' argument no longer makes much sense as the hype around streetcars is dying down).
I don't see how a streetcar large enough to serve a Skytrain-capacity function in the West End is also short enough to be a streetcar.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Sorry to move the goalposts. But...

Granville Mall (current traffic):
4: 14min = 4.29 buses/hr
7: 12min = 5 buses/hr
10: 6min = 10 buses/hr
14: 10min = 6 buses/hr
16: 10min = 6 buses/hr
17: 8min = 7.5 buses/hr
20: 6min = 10 buses/hr
50: 16min = 3.75 buses/hr
= 52.54 buses/hr
About a bus every 68.5s would arrive assuming current # of buses in front of Waterfront. Not including bus traffic from the other directions (West and East). So 60s-50s in practical terms.

Therefore, you'd need to shut down at least 4 lanes for buses. (2 as passing lanes to let the buses get to each bay, and 2 for the actual bays.)
Cordova there is about 6 lanes, so you'd have 2 lanes left for car traffic. I don't think that's feasible.

Not to mention the sidewalks would likely have to be widened on the south side.

Probably best to move transit conversations out of the tower threads.

Our hypothetical south-side bus interchange is really only in trouble when frequency reaches ~30s or less. If the 3/4/7/8/10/15/17 all start coming every five minutes, that's 84 buses an hour, or 43s; add the 20, that's 38.

Hence swapping a lane for a bus bulge - that's twice the sidewalk space. The north side only has the 4, 7 and 44 - it can stay as it is. That's 1-2 GP lanes westbound, then 1 GP lane and the interchange lane eastbound; either buses switch to the GP then turn in, or the status quo remains and all buses line up for one sign at the front.

Originally Posted by fredinno

... I don't think you're getting it. I meant a virtual passing lane. Meaning 3 lanes.

I thought it were buses that turn wider and brake slower... though again, I suggested having the streetcar routes just be BRT for cost sake anyways (it's honestly way easier to justify since the 'streetcar for development' argument no longer makes much sense as the hype around streetcars is dying down).
I don't see how a streetcar large enough to serve a Skytrain-capacity function in the West End is also short enough to be a streetcar.

Pender's four lanes wide - a three-lane solution is going to be of dubious help there. Might work on Cordova, if we're willing to sacrifice three lanes to transit and ditch any surface rail plans.

It's relative. In this situation, we're talking about regular and articulated buses against a (probable) three-car tram, so likely the tram is clumsier.
Depends on how things work out. It's likely that the cost/benefit will justify the streetcar making it to Science World at least, and from there, it might as well continue to Waterfront.

True.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Probably best to move transit conversations out of the tower threads.

Our hypothetical south-side bus interchange is really only in trouble when frequency reaches ~30s or less. If the 3/4/7/8/10/15/17 all start coming every five minutes, that's 84 buses an hour, or 43s; add the 20, that's 38.

Hence swapping a lane for a bus bulge - that's twice the sidewalk space. The north side only has the 4, 7 and 44 - it can stay as it is. That's 1-2 GP lanes westbound, then 1 GP lane and the interchange lane eastbound; either buses switch to the GP then turn in, or the status quo remains and all buses line up for one sign at the front.



Pender's four lanes wide - a three-lane solution is going to be of dubious help there. Might work on Cordova, if we're willing to sacrifice three lanes to transit and ditch any surface rail plans.

It's relative. In this situation, we're talking about regular and articulated buses against a (probable) three-car tram, so likely the tram is clumsier.
Depends on how things work out. It's likely that the cost/benefit will justify the streetcar making it to Science World at least, and from there, it might as well continue to Waterfront.

True.

How does swapping a lane for a bus bulge increase sidewalk space? Oh, sure, it increases it where the bus isn't, but people don't queue there. Not to mention space is limited here- you probably want to keep all 4 bays, in case the buses arrive all at once (which can happen on the Granville Mall). Which is a problem for the Cordova idea. Unless cars are removed from the equation, 1 min frequency means you have large delays for both cars and buses as buses try to move in and out of the bays and cars remain in the way. Remember that buses cannot reliably arrive on the mathematically optimal spacing, so a bus leaving every 30s is plausible. I'm skeptical that it wouldn't just result in a traffic nightmare.

Don't you need the North Side for buses going Westbound/Southbound on those routes?

I was thinking Powell/Water and Granville Mall, to make it easier to buses to run certain express services and increase capacity. It might work on Cordova, on the exchange area, to avoid having to reduce Cordova to 2 lanes. But you can't achieve that without repaving Cordova and adding a lane of space for pedestrians to queue on one side so that both directions can use the virtual lane. Which defeats the entire purpose.

The Olympic Line used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexit...onto_streetcar) cars, which have a turning radius of 39.09ft. Worse than normal buses, but not by much. If you're using normal LRVs, then yeah, but you don't need them here anyways. It also likely has a comparable capacity to biartics once you remove the extra seating (with the extra seating, it has a comparable capacity to artics, 120 for artics vs 130 for the streetcar), so it definitely can't also be an effective subway.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

How does swapping a lane for a bus bulge increase sidewalk space? Oh, sure, it increases it where the bus isn't, but people don't queue there. Not to mention space is limited here- you probably want to keep all 4 bays, in case the buses arrive all at once (which can happen on the Granville Mall). Which is a problem for the Cordova idea. Unless cars are removed from the equation, 1 min frequency means you have large delays for both cars and buses as buses try to move in and out of the bays and cars remain in the way. Remember that buses cannot reliably arrive on the mathematically optimal spacing, so a bus leaving every 30s is plausible. I'm skeptical that it wouldn't just result in a traffic nightmare.

Don't you need the North Side for buses going Westbound/Southbound on those routes?

I was thinking Powell/Water and Granville Mall, to make it easier to buses to run certain express services and increase capacity. It might work on Cordova, on the exchange area, to avoid having to reduce Cordova to 2 lanes. But you can't achieve that without repaving Cordova and adding a lane of space for pedestrians to queue on one side so that both directions can use the virtual lane. Which defeats the entire purpose.

The Olympic Line used https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexit...onto_streetcar) cars, which have a turning radius of 39.09ft. Worse than normal buses, but not by much. If you're using normal LRVs, then yeah, but you don't need them here anyways. It also likely has a comparable capacity to biartics once you remove the extra seating (with the extra seating, it has a comparable capacity to artics, 120 for artics vs 130 for the streetcar), so it definitely can't also be an effective subway.

Well, the average queue space and/or shelter takes up half the sidewalk; removing a lane effectively doubles the sidewalk space, so that minus the shelter & queue is roughly 1.5 sidewalks. If the bus space leaves you with as much sidewalk as before, you're doing it wrong.

30s is assuming delays. Going from very frequent experience, Granville Mall has at most three buses per stop at any given time.
Cordova is mixed-traffic, so assuming some bunching, that's four, maybe five at once; manageable as long as you don't have one bay for every route. I'm thinking one bay for the 4/7 at the front (because they're going straight on) and one long bay for the N-S routes. Just wait for the bus ahead to move. Worst case scenario, they make that part of Seymour a cul-de-sac and get a couple extra bays for layovers.

Again, there's a total of three bus routes (4, 7, 44) that'd need the north side. You could put the bus bulge on that side and run the 3/8/10/15/17 from there instead, but I suspect everybody'd prefer three right turns over three left turns.

No-go on Granville: it's two buses wide. Powell, maybe, but it's one-way and unlikely to change from that, so the gain seems minimal.

Depends on what TransLink and/or the City go with - the Freedoms need 82.02 feet. Fair enough on the Outlooks, but you've still got the extra mass/width and slow braking and confinement to tracks to worry about.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Well, the average queue space and/or shelter takes up half the sidewalk; removing a lane effectively doubles the sidewalk space, so that minus the shelter & queue is roughly 1.5 sidewalks. If the bus space leaves you with as much sidewalk as before, you're doing it wrong.

30s is assuming delays. Going from very frequent experience, Granville Mall has at most three buses per stop at any given time.
Cordova is mixed-traffic, so assuming some bunching, that's four, maybe five at once; manageable as long as you don't have one bay for every route. I'm thinking one bay for the 4/7 at the front (because they're going straight on) and one long bay for the N-S routes. Just wait for the bus ahead to move. Worst case scenario, they make that part of Seymour a cul-de-sac and get a couple extra bays for layovers.

Again, there's a total of three bus routes (4, 7, 44) that'd need the north side. You could put the bus bulge on that side and run the 3/8/10/15/17 from there instead, but I suspect everybody'd prefer three right turns over three left turns.

No-go on Granville: it's two buses wide. Powell, maybe, but it's one-way and unlikely to change from that, so the gain seems minimal.

Depends on what TransLink and/or the City go with - the Freedoms need 82.02 feet. Fair enough on the Outlooks, but you've still got the extra mass/width and slow braking and confinement to tracks to worry about.

But the bus space is one lane in and of itself. I'm not sure how you'd operating something like, say the 16, without also a Westbound bay, and that implies a North Lane bay as well. The North side already has the space set aside as well as wide sidewalks to support it as well.
Just the sidewalk expansion and the bus space on the south side would therefore take 1.5-2 lanes, which would reduce the eastbound direction for traffic to 1 lane and reducing the total mixed-traffic space to 3 lanes.

There is one other possibility. When all vehicles become automated, the road widths here can be narrowed from 3.3 to 3m, resulting in there being a total of 1.8m that we can make queuing space from while still keeping 4 mixed-traffic lanes.

Ok, so can we agree that any nexus needs to be built with the assumption of a 30s max frequency in mind?

Then we get delays on the bus side, as all the buses have to wait until all the buses in the bays ahead of them clear out. You can put get everyone to get off while you're waiting, I guess - put an exit-only bay on the sides of Water and Granville right before Cordova. Doesn't seem like an optimal solution, but it might work. Might.

Granville could have its sidewalks reduced by a lane. The section from Pender to Cordova actually is already 3 bus lanes wide.
Powell/Water definitely needs to become 2-way if we turn it into a transit mall.

I actually don't even know if the virtual passing lane idea is even worth it, since virtual lanes are kind of a niche idea themselves. I would have to do more research and ask around- but expect it to come back up again if it is a good one. Do you think it'd work?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

But the bus space is one lane in and of itself. I'm not sure how you'd operating something like, say the 16, without also a Westbound bay, and that implies a North Lane bay as well. The North side already has the space set aside as well as wide sidewalks to support it as well.
Just the sidewalk expansion and the bus space on the south side would therefore take 1.5-2 lanes, which would reduce the eastbound direction for traffic to 1 lane and reducing the total mixed-traffic space to 3 lanes.

There is one other possibility. When all vehicles become automated, the road widths here can be narrowed from 3.3 to 3m, resulting in there being a total of 1.8m that we can make queuing space from while still keeping 4 mixed-traffic lanes.

Ok, so can we agree that any nexus needs to be built with the assumption of a 30s max frequency in mind?

Then we get delays on the bus side, as all the buses have to wait until all the buses in the bays ahead of them clear out. You can put get everyone to get off while you're waiting, I guess - put an exit-only bay on the sides of Water and Granville right before Cordova. Doesn't seem like an optimal solution, but it might work. Might.

Granville could have its sidewalks reduced by a lane. The section from Pender to Cordova actually is already 3 bus lanes wide.
Powell/Water definitely needs to become 2-way if we turn it into a transit mall.

I actually don't even know if the virtual passing lane idea is even worth it, since virtual lanes are kind of a niche idea themselves. I would have to do more research and ask around- but expect it to come back up again if it is a good one. Do you think it'd work?

The 16's on Hastings - and happily so. If you mean the 4 and 7, even five-minute service is one bus every two and a half minutes; unless one, both, the 44 or a combination of the three reach RapidBus levels of ridership, that's not really enough for "interchange" status, much less a bus-only lane.

It's a guess based on observation. If anybody's got an actual estimate or some math, I'm all ears.

Eh, we've already got the "follow the leader" model at Granville and most other parts of the city; it hasn't been a problem, whereas (usually) cutting out messes up overall traffic and only saves the bus a few seconds. You'd have a point if the WF interchange becomes a common place to layover or change drivers, which'd definitely slow things down, but that could be solved with a bay or two at the back; otherwise, the line should move fast enough.

I have a strange feeling that the City would split the difference in favour of wider sidewalks, not narrower ones.

Might work, just probably not on the downtown streets. The photos suggest that virtual lanes are more of a suburban option.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The 16's on Hastings - and happily so. If you mean the 4 and 7, even five-minute service is one bus every two and a half minutes; unless one, both, the 44 or a combination of the three reach RapidBus levels of ridership, that's not really enough for "interchange" status, much less a bus-only lane.

It's a guess based on observation. If anybody's got an actual estimate or some math, I'm all ears.

Eh, we've already got the "follow the leader" model at Granville and most other parts of the city; it hasn't been a problem, whereas (usually) cutting out messes up overall traffic and only saves the bus a few seconds. You'd have a point if the WF interchange becomes a common place to layover or change drivers, which'd definitely slow things down, but that could be solved with a bay or two at the back; otherwise, the line should move fast enough.

I have a strange feeling that the City would split the difference in favour of wider sidewalks, not narrower ones.

Might work, just probably not on the downtown streets. The photos suggest that virtual lanes are more of a suburban option.

https://www.forconstructionpros.com/...we-build-roads

Lane Size: Lanes today are designed to account for driver wander and human error. If lanes were designed to the width of an AV, the lane width could be reduced by 20 percent.

Though, then again, this is DT, slow speeds may permit 3m road widths regardless of automation (Davie has road lanes of 3.2m width, and Prior is about 3.05m, though obviously people complain about the latter) Then again, this is Downtown.

If so, then, yeah, then we can (barely) keep 4 lanes if we remove the queuing space on the north side (to avoid having curbside stations, and to make left turns into Granville easier, (https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/mas...configurations) ban stopping on that side, and move all the bus queuing space to the South side.

Still, Convoying has its downsides (https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/mas...ridor-capacity), so that's at least one reason you would want to upgrade to a proper dedicated Hub Street if you had the chance. That, and the requirement for a wall on one side of Cordova for safety reasons would make the road feel more segregated.

I don't understand why you would have bus bay space in for only 1 direction and not the other. That's what you're proposing right now, and it's not good.
https://humantransit.org/2012/02/one...c-transit.html

Yeah, they probably would, instead of narrowing the sidewalk, and likely just take a lane off Seymour/Burrard/Howe if they had to.

[waves]

Sadly this has to stay in the TF forum until they add the Commercial-Lonsdale connection to their short list. I have a 3D model I have been working on, but it's not finished. I drew quick sketch in the meantime.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Nice! Though I'd question the functionality of having the North Shore Line use Grandview.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Still, Convoying has its downsides (https://brtguide.itdp.org/branch/mas...ridor-capacity), so that's at least one reason you would want to upgrade to a proper dedicated Hub Street if you had the chance. That, and the requirement for a wall on one side of Cordova for safety reasons would make the road feel more segregated.

I don't understand why you would have bus bay space in for only 1 direction and not the other. That's what you're proposing right now, and it's not good.
https://humantransit.org/2012/02/one...c-transit.html

But it's not a one-way split - the 4 & 7 stay on Cordova westbound, with a stop in a GP lane like the 44 & 50 at present. Three routes isn't enough to justify a dedicated bus lane - the 44 becomes a RapidBus, maybe.

WRT eastbound, we're talking about limited convoying for 5-8 routes for one stop (though the N-S and E-W lines should definitely have individual bays), then they split again. Waterfront ain't exactly Phibbs or Surrey.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by waves

Sadly this has to stay in the TF forum until they add the Commercial-Lonsdale connection to their short list. I have a 3D model I have been working on, but it's not finished. I drew quick sketch in the meantime.

Why does it go down the Cut? The Millennium Line even shouldn't have gone down the Cut!

Take it down Victoria to serve as a relief to the Canada.